Travis Rowley: Gay Marriage is a Sham

The consequences of silence were on parade this week when Channel 10 aired a report titled “Same-Sex Marriage Could Help RI Economy.” The premise for saying so is that many people, while decidedly against the passage of a gay marriage bill, have been entirely bullied out of the controversy – and that this has resulted in a growing confusion over how to even begin defending traditional values.

Of course, it follows that there has been a growing acceptance of one of the silliest ideas to ever manifest itself – gay marriage.

Bishop Tobin, House Speaker Gordon Fox, the president of Bishop Hendricken, the owner of Chick-Fil-A, Miss California 2009, and Brad Pitt’s mom are only a few who have recently suffered the viciousness of the programmed progressive response to anyone who dares to challenge the Left on this issue.

America is going to get gay marriage. And not merely because upcoming generations have been trained to believe in the righteousness of the cause, but largely because of the bullish political demeanor of gay marriage advocates. These are not nice people.

The Channel 10 Story

The overarching message behind Channel 10’s report was that “Newport businesses say legalizing same-sex marriage in Rhode Island could bring economic benefits.” Being an “international wedding destination,” the legalization of gay marriage would cause the city to experience even more economic activity associated with the marriage industry.

Only a media outlet under the spell of the progressive worldview could report such a ridiculous story, one that is fraught with glaring curiosities that were never investigated; a story that arrives on the eve of a controversial vote on gay marriage; and a story that offers – oh so conveniently – cover to any legislator still considering a nay vote.

Yes, I voted for gay marriage. But only to give the economy a jolt! Please, please re-elect me.

It just never occurred to Channel 10 to wonder why homosexuals have been holding out on getting married in the first place (if they truly have been). This question would have served to raise the point that these economic activities – ceremonies and receptions – have nothing to do with the government sanction of same-sex unions.

What has ever stopped gay people from hosting a wedding celebration in Newport?

Channel 10’s story was a clear derivative of a leading misconception advanced by gay marriage advocates – that is, that gays “aren’t allowed to marry who they want to marry.” It is with great frequency that callers to talk radio point to the “hypocrisy” of small-government conservatives who suddenly want to “tell others how to live their lives” when it comes to gay marriage.

This is the delusion that results when liberals are the only ones who are allowed to speak.

The Argument

The fact of the matter is that the case against gay marriage has nothing to do with outlawing homosexual rituals and celebrations. Despite what progressives would have people believe, nobody is in favor of having the FBI bust in to the Viking Hotel while two men take things to the next level.

The opposition to same-sex marriage has always been about what marriage truly is, just how vital it is to the shape and survival of a free society, and the fact that there has yet to be provided a compelling reason to alter its longstanding definition – let alone risk the unforeseen consequences of establishing such a precedent. Furthermore, should taxpaying citizens be forced to not only accept – but also subsidize – such relationships? And what might the consequences be of injecting the concept of same-sex marriage into American culture?

These are the precepts that are conspicuously absent from Channel 10’s story.

Another is that marriage existed well before the United States government. It follows that, just because the government has found it prudent to involve itself with marriage (as it unfortunately does with so many other things), this hardly amounts to unjust “discrimination” or a “violation of civil rights.”

Home ownership is also an institution that people have taken part in long before the establishment of the US government. Do tax breaks for homeowners infringe upon the civil rights of those who choose to rent apartments?

I didn’t decide to rent! I was bornthis way!

Newsflash for Progressives: The very nature of government is to discriminate. If you have a problem with that – that is, if you wish to limit the government’s authority to discriminate – then become a libertarian. Join the Tea Party!

But progressives won’t do that. Instead, their fickle philosophy instructs them to argue that renting is – somehow – the same as owning.

Per usual, progressives have framed the issue of same-sex marriage as a battle between good and evil – enlightened liberals raging against “hateful” religious fanatics. This intellectual and moral superiority that progressives bestow upon themselves is what ultimately justifies all their acts of thuggery and indecency on the road to “progress.” This is the elitism that authorizes the Left’s political intimidation, and it’s also the mentality that has considered it justified to sidestep legislatures in favor of having the judiciary thrust gay marriage onto objecting populations.

Yes, it is the Left that has – once again – utilized the force of government. Yet, amazingly, they have convinced millions that conservatives are the tyrants and fascists when it comes to the issue of same-sex marriage.

A Disingenuous Cause

In order to buttress their efforts, progressives are finally telling us what benefit there is to the state for acknowledging these same-sex relationships: There will be a boon to the economy!

Ah, yes. The saving economic grace of homosexual weddings.

But are we really to believe that the state’s homosexuals have been intentionally holding the economy hostage all these years, refusing to host lavish weddings until the General Assembly comes to its senses?

And if that is not the case, are we to believe that homosexuals have truly been unaware that they could get “married” even while the state wasn’t recognizing their relationships?

These are the types of curiosities that are never spoken by a media that reflects the sentiments of a pop culture that is void of a traditional voice. Yet, these are also the questions that would help to reveal the fact that the controversy over same-sex marriage has little to do with “equality” – or even marriage.

There has always been something entirely insincere about the crusade for gay marriage – always a hint that the issue was more political than authentic. Gays and lesbians posing for the press at their wedding ceremonies always seemed to be more staged than genuine; more like activists than brides and grooms. Why were they smiling so brightly? Because it was their wedding day? Or because their neighbors were now being forced to accept them? Was this marital bliss? Or victory?

If gay marriage is truly about economic equality, why was the passage of civil unions last year considered to be unsatisfactory to progressive activists?

It’s because this is more of a moral crusade for the Left than it is for the Right. This is about the acceptance of a lifestyle (and, at least on some level, the tearing down of another). The advocates of same-sex marriage want the word “marriage” – and nothing less. Until then, they argue, gays will remain “second-class citizens.”

Yet another leftist mission grounded in feelings rather than history, logic, debate, and reason.

Gay marriage should be seen for what it truly is, the quintessential progressive issue – fueled primarily by emotion, politics, media bias, lies, and intimidation.

The silence from traditionalists has sadly resulted in their own moral uncertainty, served to expand apathy within millions of others, and amplified a pre-existing media ignorance for reporters who are bringing us the images of our new world.

Travis Rowley (TravisRowley.com) is the author of The RI Republican: An Indictment of the Rhode Island Left.